Forum:CT Archive/Unnamed, unknown, nameless

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Consensus for Option 1. Example: "Unidentified Blue Blob" as the title and [[Category:Blobs]] for the category - the title starts with "unidentified," and the lack of piping in the category means, by default, it's categorized under "U" in the "Blobs" category. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's pretty clear that we're not going to get notability rules anytime soon. But can we at least get some consistency in nomenclature? We've got unknown this and unnamed that and nameless other thing. Can we at least decide on a single term to use for "unidentified" stuff? Like, I don't know, "unidentified?" I mean, clearly these things are known, since they're here. And they likely have names, unless their parents are the GFFA equivalent of Swedish expressionists.

Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Or can we just move these things already? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to open this CT up for an up/down vote on this issue, as it seems that most of the details have been fleshed out by the comments left by myself and the other users who have participated. Since Unidentified seems to be the word of choice, we can dismiss that part and move on to other options.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 14:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

• Vote for the option you prefer here.

[edit] Option 1

Unidentified first, no piping.

1. Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 14:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Havac 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Let's get this over with so I can move these sons of vondrooks already. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 06:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Makes for cleaner, more consistent look, while retaining the key elements a descriptive title needs. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Vondrook is a new one. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
7. The result of this discussion should probably be roped together with some of our other decisions into an article naming guidelines page at some point. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. jSarek 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Yep. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
11. —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Me too--Sith Lord D 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Greyman^(Talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Yeah, okay, then. KEJ 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Per me (below). Wildyoda 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
16. I am in :) —Unsigned comment by Darth Benny (talk • contribs).

    Stricken for lack of main namespace edits. Wildyoda 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

17. For sake of simplicity, I'm all for "Unidentified." Trak Nar 04:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2

Unidentified first, piping.

[edit] Option 3

Unidentified last, in parentheses, no piping.

[edit] Option 4

Unidentified last, in parentheses, piping.

1. Lord Hydronium 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Graestan^(Talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I have to go with this one, based upon current practice regarding other articles: Twitch/Twitch (Gungan); Yashuvhi/Yashuvhi (language); Muun/Muun (individual); Gand/Gand (planet). Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New comments

I'm definitely for unidentified first, but what exactly is "piping"? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Say the article is titled "Unidentified blue blob." Piping, in this case, would be to categorize it like so – [[Category:Blobs|Blue blob]] – instead of leaving it at the default, where it would fall in the category under the U's. Hope that helps! —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's even clearer than it was explained on Graestan's talk page. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Wait, I'm still a little bit confused. Could you give an example of each option, even option 1? I want to compare all the differences. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 would have "Unidentified Blue Blob" as the title and [[Category:Blobs]] for the category - the title starts with "unidentified," and the lack of piping in the category means, by default, it's categorized under "U" in the "Blobs" category.
• Option 2 would be Xwing328's above example. The title has "unidentified" first, but the piping in the category tag would mean this article would appear under "B" in the "Blobs" category, because the part to the right of the pipe symbol - "Blue blob" - starts with that letter.
• Option 3 would have "Blue blob (unidentified)" as the title and [[Category:Blobs]] as the category. The title has "(unidentified)" last, and the lack of piping in the category means, by default, that the article would be categorized under "B," the first letter of the title.
• Option 4 would have "Blue blob (unidentified)" as the title and [[Category:Blobs|Unidentified blue blob]] as the category. The title has "(unidentified)" last, but the piping in the category tag would mean this article would appear under "U" in the "Blobs" category, because the part after the pipe in this instance starts with a "U." Note that this option, of the four, is more open-ended - we could also sort the category by a non-letter symbol that would appear before or after the letters of the alphabet, for instance, and we would probably have to decide the specifics in a later vote should this option pass. jSarek 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, uh, thanks for the explanation. I hope that it wasn't too much trouble. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not at all, if it helped make clear what's going on in this vote, not just for you, but for any Wookieepedia confused about what exactly the vote options mean. jSarek 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since it seems like it has already been decided that we will use "unidentified," can I just go on moving the articles now with the "unnamed" and "unknown?" Because I just realized how irritating the "unnamed" is. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 05:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest waiting until this vote is officially closed so that the articles are moved to the correctly-formatted titles. —Xwing328^(Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Sure thing then. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old comments

• I said here "I think "unidentified" is the best word to use, though: they aren't "unknown" since we have some information about them, "anonymous" implies they were deliberately hiding their identity, and "unnamed" implies they didn't have so much as a droid or clone trooper identity code." —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Dan. Unidentified and categorize said articles by following text. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unidentified is definitely the best and most accurately descriptive word for these people/places/things. - JMAS 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Bah! You should have put it in the CT so we could call it a rule. :-P -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • At least if all four of us agree, it's pretty close to consensus now. Unless someone else wants to chime in with an objection, or supersede this thread with some spiffy notability rule that all rational Wookieepedians will somehow manage to agree on. —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • As much as I would love to get this settled with some good ol' spiffy notability rule, It's not something I can really came up with. I will however propose something regarding the unamed articles... Why use "Unidentified Bald Jedi" when we can use "Tatooed Bald Jedi" or maybe just "Bald Jedi"? What I am trying to say is... Is it not better to use more descriptive names for this kind of articles rather that have a huge list of "Undientified somethings"? Just asking. Carlitos Moff 05:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Because using a particular word as a tag in the title allows a reader familiar with the site to very quickly determine if the name is conjecture on our part, or a real name or in-universe name for the subject. Yes, we also have templates for that, but if someone is scanning a category for something, they can't see templates. Anyway, count me in for "unidentified" - I agree with Silly Dan's reasons back in the original SH discussion. jSarek 12:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I too go with unidentified, per Dan's reasoning. Unit 8311 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • You got a point there jSarek. Let's just go ahead and put them all under unidentified. Carlitos Moff 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Unidentified. And this seems like a fairly clear consensus already. —Xwing328^(Talk) 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Agreed with unidentified. Stake black ^msg 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• As if there wasn't enough consensus anyway, unidentified works best for me. Though, after the Unidentified title, I would accept some descriptors, aka Unidentified blue tentacled being or something like that. ^Jorrel _Fraajic 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As I stated in the other thread, putting "unidentified" (or whatever we choose) first in the title is problematic. I'd suggest putting it in parentheses at the end if we use it. Edit: This is in response to the train of discussion started by Carlitos Moff above. - Lord Hydronium 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Per LH, entirely. Parentheses work well elsewhere already. But, in response to the main question, I think unidentified is the best word. Graestan^(Talk) 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So, instead of Unidentified Verpine Jedi, we'd have Verpine Jedi (unidentified)? I honestly can't decide if that looks better or worse, but it would help the alphabetization. —Silly Dan _(talk) 17:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, I'm used to the former over the latter, but if it helps. Gah, I'm undecided. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If you mean alphabetization within categories, that's already covered within the categorization template already; simply add |SURNAME,GIVEN NAME (in this case, let's say |Rodian Prisoner, Unidentified]] for Unidentified Rodian prisoner) within the brackets of the category tag. To the main point, Unidentified sounds best, without the parentheses.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Very much agreed with Goodwood. Parentheses look terrible in this instance, and the software allows us to fix the alphabetizing. Unidentified without the parentheses Wildyoda 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Unidentified, no parentheses. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• The whole point of sticking in Unidentified instead of just Verpine Jedi is consistency. It's the ability to stick them in a category and have them all grouped together instead of having to search around wondering what descriptor someone used and put first in his name. Re-alphabetizing them completely defeats the purpose of sticking the designator on the front. Unidentified, no parentheses, no piping. Havac 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "piping" as you call it was simply a suggestion, just to put that out there. I agree with your points overall.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Title it with parentheses, sort it in categories under "U", then. The problem with having "Unidentified" first is that it makes it a lot harder to scan a list of conjectural titles when every single one starts the same, especially since the "Unidentified" adds no distinguishing information. If I'm scanning through a list like:
    • Unidentified Bith Jedi
    • Unidentified Human Jedi
    • Unidentified Rodian Jedi
    • Unidentified Verpine Jedi
  • I have ignore the first word in all of them, since the relevant distinguishing information is hidden away behind it. If you're trying to quickly scan for a particular subject, all the titles look the same. For something like:
    • Bith Jedi (unidentified)
    • Human Jedi (unidentified)
    • Rodian Jedi (unidentified)
    • Verpine Jedi (unidentified)
  • The important information, what I need to figure out what I'm looking for, is right there. - Lord Hydronium 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you do that, though, the items of that list will get all mixed-up with all the others in any other given category unless you pipe them. The distinguishing information, in these cases, would be that they're "unidentified", right? Not that they're Bith or Human or Rodian or Verpine or Jedi, but that they've not been identified.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree again. You would already obviously be scanning a Jedi category. If you are looking for a character without a name, you know to scan the Us for "Unidentified Whatever". If you are looking for a character you don't REALIZE doesn't have a name, you aren't going to be looking for "Human" or "Bith" as a distinguishing adjective anyway (and if you are, it's a whole lot faster to use CTRL+F, in which case it doesn't MATTER where on the page an entry is sorted, you'll hit it pretty fast). No piping. Wildyoda 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, let's have unidentified first and no parentheses. Cyfiero II ^(Comlink) 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.